Canadian Soldier Gets Five Years in Jail for 'Gay Panic' Murder

A Canadian soldier has been sentenced to five years in jail for the murder of a man he claimed made a sexual advance on him, the Winnipeg Free Press reports:

Duane Lacquette (pictured, above), known as Jon-Jon to his many friends and large Métis family, was found Jan. 16, 2010 lying naked in his basement following a night of drinking. Lacquette was the victim of a UFC-style choke-hold that strangled him.

Jason John Ouimet (pictured, below), a former amateur boxer and now a gunner at CFB Shilo, was charged with murder but pled guilty to manslaughter in late April. Ouimet claimed he passed out in Lacquette's basement and awoke to find a naked Lacquette performing oral sex on him. Crown Attorney Jim Ross said Ouimet was so infuriated by the unwanted sexual touching that he killed Lacquette when he could have used his superior size and fighting skills to simply subdue him instead.

Family and friends have said all along they do not believe Lacquette would have sexually assaulted anyone or would have put himself at risk of violence.

Alyssa Desrochers, who was a friend of Lacquette's, doubts the killer's claims. "I think Jason was down for [sex]," she speculates, "then when he wasn't drunk anymore he killed Duane in the heat of the moment."

On the night of the killing, the two men met in a Brandon bar. Eventually, they went to Lacquette's house with three young women. Ouimet expressed an interest in one of the women but passed out. The three women left and, when Ouimet came to, he claims that Lacquette was trying to have sex with him.

Ouimet, a muscular boxing champion, put the 5-foot-7, 165-pound Lacquette into a UFC-style chokehold, strangled him and stomped on his neck. He left the house without calling police and was arrested for the killing three weeks later.

The soldier has been out on bail ever since and continues to serve in the Canadian military. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on a joint recommendation from his lawyers and the Crown lawyer prosecuting the case.

In my humble opinion there is a lot more to this story. I have a hunch this was a sexual "scene" gone awry. In a twisted sense of rationale Ouimet pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Posted by: Giovanni | Jun 8, 2012 1:24:34 PM

Wow, continues to serve in the Canadian military. Five years for "manslaughter"? It certainly looks like America's corrosive influence has finally fouled Canada. It seems the more I read and hear the more I tend to believe that Canada is devolving. Sad.

Posted by: Bob R | Jun 8, 2012 1:25:45 PM

"Canada - full and total equality under law"

You hear that, victim of the family? In Canada, gay people have full and total equality under law.....and don't let anybody tell you that those laws amount to nothing other than ink on paper, when push comes to shove.

Posted by: Rick | Jun 8, 2012 1:30:21 PM

Rick, convincing yourself that the US is ahead of Canada in terms of LGBT Equality, law, policy and social culture is a losing battle.

According to the London Free Press, a Canadian paper, the five year sentence was jointly recommended by the crown and the defense. Ross, the crown attorney, said that the circumstances (sexual assault) played a role in the sentence. "Ross said Ouiment's version of events was supported by forensic evidence and Lacquette's personal history." Remember, we are not privy to the forensic evidence.

So yes, I would say that gay people are treated equally under the law in Canada. The only thing I question is if a soldier received special treatment from the Crown - which I personally feel is unlikely in this case. And if sexual assault was committed, then a lower sentence seems reasonable.

Posted by: screech | Jun 8, 2012 1:48:45 PM

Heterosexuals in court case after court case have proven they are ok with dead gay people. Just say you were sexually assaulted or looked at funny and we, heterosexuals, will believe you with no evidence because those damn dirty homosexuals are out there to corrupt you. And it's total bs. They know these guys weren't looked at funny or sexually assaulted but they will use that excuse to get these guys out of serious punishment because they don't see heterosexual lives worth punishing for killing gay lives. They know these heterosexuals killed because they wanted to, it was fun, they wanted to feel want it was like to kill someone right in front of them, they wanted to put "gay people in their place" and who better to chose than a person from a long reviled group.

Posted by: Bill | Jun 8, 2012 1:55:23 PM

"Victims" are so bothersome. Aren't they "Rick"? I have no doubt you would have strangled him yourself for acting "effeminate."

@ Bill I didn't get that vibe. First, from the paper I read there was forensic evidence taken into consideration. Second, he did receive five years punishment. Third, he confessed to a friend two days later that he had killed Lacquette. That is an expression of remorse. I would assume that cold blooded killers don't generally confess their crimes. Here is that Free Press article: http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/06/07/19850546.html

So I think Ouimet did the wrong thing. I also think he should go to jail. If there was evidence of an assault, then I think it should matter at the sentencing. But I don't think we are entitled to say things like "Oh, he wanted to know what it was like to kill a gay person! He loved it!" That's rash.

Posted by: screech | Jun 8, 2012 2:09:50 PM

So, if a straight soldier passes out and wakes up to find a woman he went home with performing an unwanted sex act on him, he's justified in choking her to death, stomping her on the neck, and then failing to call the cops?

If a straight female soldier who is bodybuilder or boxer goes home with a much smaller and weaker straight man and passes out and wakes up to find him servicing her orally against her will, she is justified in killing him rather than just picking him up and hurling him across the room?

Five year sentence in either case? Really? This is equal treatment under the law?

Posted by: Lymis | Jun 8, 2012 2:10:18 PM

I this the sentence is just from what I read of the case this young man was being sexually assaulted

Posted by: James | Jun 8, 2012 2:17:41 PM

Well, I don't think the orientation of those assaulted matters. It is the assault itself that matters. So take one case in which there is no sexual assault. In the middle of the night, one person gets up and chokes another to death. Perhaps he was just upset that there were no women around. In another hypothetical case, someone awakes and finds that they have been sexually assaulted. They freak out and kill the other person. So, should sexual assault be taken into consideration? Yes, I think so. Just like battered wife syndrome is taken into account during the sentencing.

I do respect opposing opinions on this question. But yes, I do see a difference.

Posted by: screech | Jun 8, 2012 2:21:12 PM

The sentence was in line with the usual sentencing guidelines for manslaughter in this country so he received no special treatment and did not get off easy because he killed a gay person.

Posted by: Swiminbuff | Jun 8, 2012 2:25:59 PM

First off, I am a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt LOL

In Canada, the onus is on the crown to prove the crime and when it comes to sentencing, the judge is pre-prescribed to give a sentence within the standards of the criminal code as well as looking at what the crown and defence are asking.

In this case, the fact that there was agreement between the two parties is important. As well as the fact that there was forensic evidence. We are not privy to what that evidence entailed so we can not say for sure that the Defendant was not assaulted or the like.

So five years while seeming a little low is within the standards. What We dont know is whether he will hae to serve the complete five years!

I do not agree with the gay panic defence, but one does have to look at the "mens ra" of why he did it. In other words, what was going through his mind at the time of the event. If he did the act but was so angry at the time, it could be said that he did not have the complete mens ra to do the act and could be seen as a defence. In other words, he did not know or understand completely what he was doing.

i also do not agree that the sentence was low due to the fact the deceased was gay. Canada does have a pretty strigent hate crime law which if the crown showed that the death was solely due to the sexual orientation of the deceased , it could have infact increased the sentence. So there is a lot more here than we think.

Posted by: canada | Jun 8, 2012 2:26:13 PM

If given a choice between Canada and the United States for preferred places of residence, I would choose Canada . . . which is not saying a whole lot.

It's only like choosing the very-very slightly lesser than two evils.

Posted by: Ricco | Jun 8, 2012 2:26:34 PM

This is a voluntary manslaughter, a deliberate killing that has a reduced punishment because of the circumstances in which it occurred," Ross said.

Crown Prosecutor Ross said Ouiment's version of events was supported by forensic evidence and Lacquette's personal history.

"The idea that Duane Lacquette would engage in sexually assaulting someone is intensely painful for the family," Ross said. "Nonetheless, that is where all the evidence leads us."

Posted by: Swiminbuff | Jun 8, 2012 2:29:30 PM

@Screech
I am fascinated by your analysis.
I find the term "sexual assault" to be very misleading in this case. I wonder if the word "assault" is used more freely, or is more emotional than is warranted. I don't see performing oral sex on someone who is asleep as anything like capturing a person and beating them into submission, etc. Doesn't the actual violence need to be taken into account?
Jeff Conaway supposedly had this experience with John Travolta and their friendship ended. That seems appropriate.
Let me say, waking up and finding someone performing oral sex on oneself may be disturbing mentally, but not of any harm phyisically. Do you see what I mean? It is not a violent attack, it just doesn't take into account the will of the sleeping individual.
Should a person get a reduced sentence because they killed another person essentially out of revulsion, rather than self-defense?

Posted by: NullNaught | Jun 8, 2012 2:35:48 PM

5 years for manslaughter is typical and common in the U.S. also. I'd also judge him to be guilty of manslaughter [i.e. non per-meditated, an accident].

Moral of this story:

Think twice about heavy drinking sessions then wrestling with a 'straight' guy.

Posted by: ratbastard | Jun 8, 2012 2:41:54 PM

5 years for manslaughter is typical and common in the U.S. also. I'd also judge him to be guilty of manslaughter [i.e. non per-meditated, an accident].

Moral of this story:

Think twice about heavy drinking sessions then wrestling with a 'straight' guy.

Posted by: ratbastard | Jun 8, 2012 2:41:57 PM

Screech is going to fill this thread with his ignorance. It happens everytime a case like this is posted. There is someone who will posts continously to tell us who have heard countless cases like this that this is a unique case, that there really was justification for the murder, that a sexual assault did occur. Murders like this happen frequently. There is no genetic evidence. The whole case revolves around all parties believing a sexual assault occured and that the heterosexual killer was innocent and the gay person was preying on the killer. It's about turning the victim into a villian. Matthew Shephard was 5'4" and around 120 pounds. Those defendants who walked into a gay bar to pick out a gay person to kill said he wanted to sexually assault them. Duane was killed in his own basement. Heterosexual killers enter gay spaces and then when they are caught say they were sexually assaulted or looked at funny. The heterosexual killer did NOT feel remorse for killing Duane, he was bragging. It's rare for heterosexual killers to try to cover up their murders because gay people are a reviled group and they think they can get away with it even though the evidence in there. Last year, a man was acquitted for killing a gay man in NYC even though they had clear video of him entering and leaving the apartment when the murder occured along with other evidence. The heterosexual killer claimed the gay guy tried to sexually assault him.